Man, you are something else Noonan. First you warmonger and want to kill the terrorists, then you agree with this absurd plan of offering blanket ammnesty to terrorists WHILE THE WAR IS STILL GOING.

This has NEVER been done, only after the war ends. What you are doing is putting a target on all the soldiers heads and promoting the terrorists to kill as many as they can because they will all be pardoned for it.

Might as well open up all those secret prisons you have and let all those terrorists out and pardon them as well.

Yep. Republicans are tough on terror. They pardon them.

And what is it the Dims have been screaming should be done with Gitmo detainees? Now that Iraq wants to do the same, the Dims scream?

Deluxe Tin Foil hats. Axis, to the front of the Tin Foil line.

I wonder what the left wing kooks would have done at the end of WWII? I guess they would have executed every prisoner of war instead of freeing them after the war was over.

axis,

I was going to post this under the thread "Open Thread: Congress Begins New Debate In Iraq" where by some logic known only to you, you cite a handful of names and alleged military service and conclude: "democrats that served [in the U.S. military] vastly outnumber the Republicans, who vastly avoided the draft."

Since this thread is also about the Democratic insanity over Iraq, and since you have already started off with another of your typical comments, I think I'll post it here instead. Readers can check the referenced thread to read your original comments, allegations, and conclusion.

Only a liberal Democrat like you axis, could hand select an insignificant, unscientific, statistically inaccurate handful of names that suits your conclusion, and from that skewed and intentionally biased information, conclude that more Democrats have served in the military than Republicans!

The only thing more laughable [pathetic] is that some of your liberal readers may actually believe that trash.

What in the world kind of scientific or statistical sampling is that? Is this the way your liberal college professors taught you to sample information and reach valid conclusions? Ask for your money back! No wonder Democratic polls are so warped and skewed -- and wrong!

Let's see how this works. Start with 500 red marbles and 500 blue marbles. Put those in a big bowl. Now pick out 40 red marbles and 60 blue marbles from that bowl. Using "the axis [un]scientific sampling and skewing logic", what can we conclude? Well, there are 60 blue marbles in our [hand selected] sample, but only 40 red marbles in our [hand selected] sample. Since 60 is larger than 40, we [axis] conclude that there are more blue marbles in our big bowl than there are red marbles. Typical liberal thinking!!!

Could you please provide the same information for all 300 MILLION (+/-) Americans so we can make a real comparison?

Well, if that's too much trouble for your researchers, then perhaps you can provide the same information for all persons who have served in public office for say the past 50 years -- to make sure we cover the days of the draft?

Well, if that's too much trouble, how about for all elected officials and politicians in all local, state, and national positions over the past 30 years?

Well, if that's too much trouble, how about for all elected officials and politicians who have served at the state and national level for the past 10 years?

Well, if that's too much trouble, how about for all current state legislators and U.S. senators and representatives?

Well, if that's too much trouble, how about a scientific and statistically accurate sampling of 1000 individuals?

Can't do that either? ...Don' worry about it, no one's interested anyway.

Just like they aren't interested (or fooled) about your picking a handful of names -- by whatever warped and skewed criteria you used to select them from your magic propaganda hat -- and concluding more Democrats have served in the military than Republicans.

Is this your way to justify the fact that liberal Democrats do not support America's military or America's soldiers?

Is this your way to justify liberal Democrat's incessant anti-American, anti-American-military propaganda that provides hope and encouragement to the terrorists to continuing killing and wounding even more of America's Democrat and Republican soldiers, along with tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children?

Is that what you are trying to justify, axis... your liberal Democratic support for the terrorists who are killing our Democratic and Republican American troops?!!!

Each time the terrorists blow up another American soldier or Iraqi family, remember... they are in effect CASTING THEIR VOTE for the Democrats!!!

Keep supporting and encouraging those Iraqi terrorists... that should encourage them to CAST EVEN MORE VOTES in support of Democrats for the November elections!

Yep. Democrats are weak on terrorists. They encourage them!!!

Typical [pathetic] liberal thinking!

AAR

This is a very good piece of the article which spells it out:

"This sanctimony is so dishonest it stews the bowels. Most of these Democrats have denounced America’s decision to disband the Iraqi military after the toppling of Saddam. Those Iraqis fired on Americans and now they comprise the bulk of the insurgents. These Democrats wanted to keep many, if not most, of the same fighters in uniform and give them the color of authority in Iraq — not send them off to be ditch diggers and taxi drivers under some amnesty plan. They wanted them to command troops!

Now, it turns out that the story was wrong and the Iraqi government isn’t actually moving ahead with an amnesty plan. I think that’s for the good. But I don’t think America would be wise to tell the Iraqi government they can’t ever find a solution to this conflict that lets insurgents off the hook at all. Wars against insurgencies always involve cooptation. Telling the insurgents - as opposed to the foreign fighters who should be hung from the nearest lamppost — that it’s death or victory is not a path to peace."

I wonder what the left wing kooks would have done at the end of WWII? I guess they would have executed every prisoner of war instead of freeing them after the war was over.

-- Thats the point dumb, dumb. War ammnesty is for AFTER the war is over. Not DURING an ongoing war. Did you give the nazis ammnesty WHILE you were fighting them? NO. But you think it is ok to give the terrorists ammnesty and let them out of prison and walk away WHILE the war is still on , so they can join back up with their comrades and kill some more US troops.

Absolutely BRILLIANT!!! Whats the point in even fighting, you think the soldiers dying are going to like the idea of you pardoning the terrorist while they are still killing the troops?

Conservatives sure support the troops alright. Wasn't enough sending them into an illegal and unjustified war to die, without adequate or any body armour, without armoured vehicles and without proper troops numbers, now you are just going to let the terrorists that kill the troops to go free and walk away.

Name me one war where you gave the enemy ammnesty while you were still fighting them.

Another brilliant conservative idea.

axis,

Name me another war in the history of the world that started with a group of terrorists hijacking four commercial airplanes filled with men, women, children, and their families, and then flew those planes, as missiles, into buildings filled with thousands more men, women, children, and their families!

Note axis, I am referring here to the war against terrorists in general. I did not say the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else -- just the war against world terrorism.

AAR

War sure is confusing? We should immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. Here is a reality: The Chinese have underwritten the war in Iraq with loans. They will get their pound of flesh, eventually. Peace

AAR,

You correctly state that citing a few Democrats with military service does not prove that Democrats have equal or greater levels of military service. You say that to better make this argument, you would need to analyze a whole group of people, legislators, etc.

Again, good for you, you understand basic statistics. But I have to ask, why do you and the usual assortment of Bushbots then argue the other side, that Republicans have greater levels of military service than Democrats? I have seen no evidence to back up that assertion. Shouldn't you practice what you preach, and provide some evidence to back up that assertion?

Axis of dumbassery? The term is "dum-dum." Some of you Canadians aren't too smart, are you? Besides, the issue in this post wasn't to debate the amnesty issue, it was to point out hypocracy--leftist hypocracy.

Mark, once again, you hit the nail on the head...

I gotta admit, I don't like this "amnesty" thing and I'm confused as to why the Repubs have changed course.

Look, folks, we've got 12 million illegal terrorist here already and the Heritage Foundation says we'll have another 100 million in 20 years if we offer amnesty.

Even a guest terrorist program will fail, as it did in Europe.

Amnesty only emboldens the terrorists to come here and bring their families.

I believe we must first fence in all of Iraq, secure the borders. Only at the point that Iraqi borders are secure can we even discuss what to do with the 12 million already here.

Can someone please explain how, overnight, we switched from hating amnesty to embracing it?

AAR,

I must say, your posts are always excellent.

I must also add, watching you and Axis "go at it" is a little like watching Ali "fight" Chuck Wepner.

If you are wondering which role you play. I will simply state you are the one that floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee. Axis is just the slow, fat white guy that repeatedly shows up to get his face bashed in.

Axis,

Since you are Canadian you're excused from knowing this:

When Vicksburg surrendered to Grant during the Civil War, he paroled the Confederate troops - these were men who the day before were killing his men, and they were defenders of slavery! But he knew - let 'em up easy and you'll demoralise the other side...its hard to fight like demons against people who are allowing you a way out...fanatics aside, most people only want to fight as long as the think they can win - after that, they just want to get out of it as easily as possible.

You are not excused, on the other hand, from knowing that Italian units were recruited after Italy surrendered in WWII - once again, there were former fascist soldiers who once upon a time were trying to kill Americans...

Mercy is a virtue, Axis.

I guess axis and surprisingly, Rep. John "Sgt. Fury" Murtha, don't recall the Chieu Hoi program

I guess axis and surprisingly, Rep. John "Sgt. Fury" Murtha, don't recall the Chieu Hoi program

When Vicksburg surrendered to Grant during the Civil War, he paroled the Confederate troops

-- Wow, a surrender, meaning the war was OVER, not still going.

You are not excused, on the other hand, from knowing that Italian units were recruited after Italy surrendered in WWII

-- Once again AFTER the war Mark, not during the war. Notice you I said there name 1 war where soldiers were granted ammnesty DURING, yes DURING the war.

Unless I missed something and the US has suddenly won the war and all terrorists worldwide have surrendered??

Didn't think so.

-- Wow, a surrender, meaning the war was OVER, not still going.

Ummmm.....the surrender of Vicksburg in 1863 did not end the U.S. Civil War. Silly Canadian, that occured in 1865 with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Courthouse.

-- Once again AFTER the war Mark, not during the war. Notice you I said there name 1 war where soldiers were granted ammnesty DURING, yes DURING the war.

Seriously...are you THIS ignorant of history? I mean really?!

I'm not even going to provide you with the information about when Italy fell in relation to the end of WWII. I'll let you google it and realize how foolish you are all by yourself.

After a battle, after a war, same difference.

No battle or war against the terrorists has been won, so they are not comparable.

So you believe that offering ammnesty to Al Qaeda terrorists is the best way to support the troops huh?

Do you think the troops out there getting their arms and legsblown off and killed are going to appreciate seeing you release the terrorists that killed all their buddies scott free? Somehow I don't think they will share your views on this.

First this:

Once again AFTER the war Mark, not during the war.

Now this:

After a battle, after a war, same difference.

Ummmm, no it is not the same difference....at least according to you at first.

So you believe that offering ammnesty to Al Qaeda terrorists is the best way to support the troops huh?

Wait....I thought the left's talking point was that the insurgents were mostly Sunni Iraqis and not al-Qaeda terrorists. Which is it?

In reality, the offer for amnesty is for Sunni Iraqis NOT al-Qaedafigthers from Jordan, Saudi arabia, Syria and where ever else.

And the last point, this decision is being made by a sovereign Iraqi government. Another talking point of the left has been that we ought to let the Iraqis decide their own future. So when they do, who is first in line to criticize them...that's right the left.

Mark's point is that the left is, has and will remain 100% hypocritical on the war. Thanks for proving his point.

TL, jerks like axis, Ash, CO, et.al., continue to prove Mark and Matt's points here. Don't waste your time with axis; he spends a lot of time in the shooting gallery with CO...

AAR said this:

"Each time the terrorists blow up another American soldier or Iraqi family, remember... they are in effect CASTING THEIR VOTE for the Democrats!!!"

I just want to point out it is Republican policy that has caused that killing in the first place. Wasn't Iraq supposed to be secure years ago?

The reason we are still debating it so many years later is that Iraq is one of the biggest American military failures ever. Even if the violence suddenly stopped tomorrow, and a democracy is formed, it will still be considered a failure because it took so long, and the human and economic costs were staggering.

Don't get me wrong. I hope that America brings prosperity to the region and I hope the citizens there live a life of freedom for many years. Our soldiers who fought there deserve the best treatment when they return. I hope that America becomes more united when everything is over.

I'm pretty sure the amnesty thing was translated wrong, so once again, Axis is just pissin in the wind.

Mark said: "When Vicksburg surrendered to Grant during the Civil War, he paroled the Confederate troops - these were men who the day before were killing his men, and they were defenders of slavery! But he knew - let 'em up easy and you'll demoralise the other side...its hard to fight like demons against people who are allowing you a way out...fanatics aside, most people only want to fight as long as the think they can win - after that, they just want to get out of it as easily as possible."

So what about the guys in Gitmo? Wouldn't they be demoralized if they were released too? How is it different? Or can it be assumed that they are all fanatics fighting for al Qaeda?

I recall back in 2004 that when a group of Gitmo detainees were released the right screamed bloody murder. And as it turned out there was reason to -- a few of them went back and joined the fight again.

Also, wasn't it up until just a few months ago that Bush considered all insurgents terrorists? And weren't many on the right fine with that characterization? Then things changed in December when Bush finally recognized different species of insurgents -- and again many on the right were fine with it. For the most part, those on the left just said, "that's what we've been saying all along!" And now their tune seems to have changed.

Around the same time Karzai offered to make nice with Mullah Omar, after offering amnesty to Taliban fighters for months prior to that -- arguably a very similar situation to that found in Iraq now. Unfortunately, the Taliban has become more and more of a problem since they were offered amnesty.

It's funny how things work out sometimes.

Wait....I thought the left's talking point was that the insurgents were mostly Sunni Iraqis and not al-Qaeda terrorists. Which is it?

-- They are, however what do you think Al Qaeda is doing in Iraq? Enjoying the balmy weather? No, they are there to recruit Iraqis to their cause, using the occupation as a recruiting tool.

In reality, the offer for amnesty is for Sunni Iraqis NOT al-Qaedafigthers from Jordan, Saudi arabia, Syria and where ever else.

-- Most Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq are not foreigners aside from the recruiters, they are Iraqis. So a lot of those you are wanting to pardon are terrorists.

And the last point, this decision is being made by a sovereign Iraqi government. Another talking point of the left has been that we ought to let the Iraqis decide their own future. So when they do, who is first in line to criticize them...that's right the left.

-- Thats a good one, the sovereign government of Iraq, like its government does not live or die on Bush's word. Bush plays with it like a puppet. It is the Republicans that agree with granting terrorists ammnesty, not democrats, so there is no confusion about how is for it and who is against it, nice try though.

I notice you avoided answering those TOUGH questions, that being do you think granting ammnesty is the best way to support the troops? Do you think the troops who are seeing their friends have the arms and legs blown off and die everyday are going to be thankful that you are letting those killing them go free to get back into the fight again?

Axis,

You know something? You are a waste of these people's precious TIME!!

I can see now that the only reason you keep your trash up, is because you want them to come back again, and again, and again, and AGAIN!

Just so you can keep spewing your hypocrisy over, and over, and OVER again!

I have heard ENOUGH of your hypocritical left-wing trash!!

Perhaps if you would get out and find a job and stop whining around about your pity- party, you might actually have some respect for people who have tried to do right, and who are obviously FAR WISER than you, all you are doing now is throwing around your hypocritical lying kimchee without meaning, not making any sense at all, No reasoning, Now what you bettered be doing, is finding you a good bible believing church, and get a new lease on life and maybe then you will find peace[after the evil spirits come out] with the people who know what's BEST for you!!

But Nooooooo, No one elses help is ever good enough is it?

Well I'll tell you...........

Your insane left-wing tripe isn't going to get you anywhere, The more you write the more you dig yourself a pit!

example:
Axis the thinker??

ummmmmm,[axis thinking]{ How much dirt can I dig up on George Bush, Um and the christians, Um and Decent Moral American families, Um, the soldiers in the war ?

Jeremiah answers: How stupid, HOW STUPID, SOOOO RETARDED, pitiful, sad, really SAD!!!

Let us be glad, VERY glad, all canadians are not like "AXIS" POWERS" here!!!

Start using your head for something other than a hatrack, axis powers!

Well, axis says, lets start all over again with the bush bashing.

Well I can tell you, I have had it, this is it, enough is enough, enough of your hypocracy, axis, No more replies from me axis powers!!!!!!!!

Heres some more good news from Iraq, only 23 dead this time. The insurgency is in its last throes for sure

--------------

Insurgent blasts kill at least 27 in Iraq

By PATRICK QUINN, Associated Press Writer Sat Jun 17, 7:24 PM ET

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Insurgents foiled heightened security in Baghdad and killed more than two dozen people Saturday after an al-Qaida threat to avenge the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, dealing a blow to the Iraqi government's pledge to bring peace to the capital.

Eleven more Iraqis, including four in Baghdad, died in shooting attacks across
Iraq.

U.S. troops, meanwhile, combed through the "Triangle of Death," a predominantly Sunni Arab region south of the capital looking for two soldiers missing since an attack Friday on a traffic checkpoint that also killed one of their comrades.

The spree of bombings and mortar attacks in Baghdad was an embarrassment for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who ordered more police and army checkpoints for the city last week to restore security for its 5 million residents.

His Sunni Arab deputy prime minister, Salam Zikam Ali al-Zubaie, charged that the plan was not properly thought out and needed more work.

"I can say that I am not pleased with the way the Baghdad security plan began," he told al-Jazeera television. "The Baghdad plan has begun, but it will need a year or more to finish."

Al-Zubaie said the Interior Ministry, which is responsible for Iraq's police forces, first has to be cleansed of people who may be responsible for "human rights violations." Many Sunnis charge that Shiite-dominated security services have been infiltrated by Shiite militias blamed for sectarian violence.

"There are a lot of officials who were responsible for committing numerous acts of foolishness and many human right violations who are still in positions of responsibility," al-Zubaie said.

Eight attacks killed at least 27 people and wounded dozens in the Baghdad area.

The violence included a suicide bomber who blew up his car as it was being towed near a police checkpoint in Mahmoudiya, south of the city, killing four civilians and injuring 15. The bomber had claimed his car broke down and hired a tractor to tow it while he rode inside, police Capt. Rashid al-Samarie said.

A mortar barrage also hit a residential area in Mahmoudiya, a predominantly Sunni town about 20 miles south of Baghdad, killing one civilian and wounding three.

In Baghdad itself, a mortar shell hit one of Baghdad's best known markets, in the predominantly Shiite suburb of Kazimiyah, killing at least four people and wounding 13, police said.

About a half hour later, two people died and 24 were wounded when a bomb left in a plastic bag exploded at an outdoor market where secondhand goods are sold in central Baghdad.

Police said a suicide bomber targeting an Iraqi army patrol near Wathiq Square in the same neighborhood killed seven people when he blew himself up.

A parked car bomb in southwest Baghdad killed six people and wounded 36, police said.

Three mortar rounds hit a popular open-air market in the al-Bour area of northern Baghdad, killing two and wounding 14.

One other person died from a roadside bombing.

The blasts stepped up a surge of violence that has shattered the fragile calm imposed by the security crackdown launched a week after bombs dropped by a U.S. warplane killed al-Zarqawi in a hideout June 7.

On Friday, a suspected shoe bomber targeting a Shiite imam who criticized al-Zarqawi blew himself up inside the Buratha mosque during the main weekly religious service, killing 13 people and wounding 28. The assault was staged during a four-hour driving ban meant to prevent suicide car bombs during Friday prayers.

It was the second attack on the Buratha mosque in just over two months. On April 7, four suicide bombers, including a woman, set off their explosives during Friday prayers, killing at least 85 worshippers. The U.S. military blamed al-Zarqawi's followers.

On Friday, Al-Jazeera aired an audio tape of a key insurgency leader calling al-Zarqawi's death a "great loss" but saying it would strengthen the militants' determination.

The broadcaster identified the voice as that of Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, head of the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which groups five Iraqi insurgent organizations including al-Qaida in Iraq. The authenticity of the tape could not immediately be verified.

Discussing the missing American soldiers, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said that four raids had been carried out since Friday's attack and that ground forces, helicopters and airplanes were taking part in the search.

The soldiers came under attack at a traffic checkpoint next to a canal southwest of Youssifiyah, 12 miles south of Baghdad. The area is considered and insurgent hotbed.

"We are currently using every means at our disposal on the ground, in the air and in the water to find them," Caldwell said.

Jeremiah,

Thank you for all your kind words. There is no greater compliment you can bestow than knowing that the truths that are slaying your right wing lies and propaganda are getting under your skin.

hehe

I notice you avoided answering those TOUGH questions, that being do you think granting ammnesty is the best way to support the troops?

And I see you have no problem with shame since you showed your face after making an utter fool of yourself with your "show me one war" crap. Pathetic...

Do tell, how is the Iraqi Govt. granting amnesty to Iraqi Sunnis NOT supporting the troops?

Do you think the troops who are seeing their friends have the arms and legs blown off and die everyday are going to be thankful that you are letting those killing them go free to get back into the fight again?

I have no idea what the troops may or may not think and I won't pretend to know. You on the other hand must be SO plugged into the U.S. military that you know exactly what they are thinking.

Maybe you don't realize that you not only made an utter buffoon of yourself with your poor grasp of history, when Mark provided two examples of what you demanded, he actually eviserated the weak position you put forth. If you don't understand that, then maybe engaging in debate/argument on the internet isn't "your thing" and you would be better off spending your time on something else.

Heres some more good news from Iraq, only 23 dead this time. The insurgency is in its last throes for sure

Aside from being an incosiderate jackass, let me give you a new history topic to google: Battle of the Bulge. Pay close attention to the date it occured and the casualties suffered.

LMAO wait a minute...

Heres some more good news from Iraq, only 23 dead this time. The insurgency is in its last throes for sure

Insurgent blasts kill at least 27 in Iraq

Gotta say, the unintentional humor you provide around here is truly appreciated.

Hey, I devalued the bad news for the benefit of those staunch conservatives here, but you are right, we should be full and frank about all the good news coming in from Iraq.

Your comments indicating that providing ammnesty to terrorist killing the troops is serving their best interests is just laughable. This is like saying to the family of a murder victim that you are going to pardon the killer for their benefit and expecting them to appreciate it.

I can't speak for the troops, however I can honestly say that if I was out there and my buddies were dying and getting their limbs blown off only for you chickhawks back here safe and sound providing ammnesty to the terrorists while the war was still going, I would have to resist the temptation to hunt you all down when I got back.

I see no way that any rational soldier that is there or has been there would agree that that is a good idea. After the war, perhaps, during, no chance.

Oh my god axis, the amnesty thing was a bad translation. Shut the hell up already, you are howling at the moon.

Axis,

Perhaps if you had been a soldier, you'd understand better.

The best part about the Dems. rush to publicly express their disgust over the "Iraq amnesty plan" was of course that there was in fact no such thing as an "Iraq amnesty plan". It was another in the series of media blunders committed by the endless supply of journalists always eager to sabbotage the war effort but evidently lax when it comes to reporting the truth (ie. Newsweek, ABC, CBS). Ahh those "truth seekers" on the left built in the mold of Murrow, they never rest. But no matter, the Dems. still huffed and puffed and tried their hardest to look so tough before the cameras. Aren't they cute when they pretend to be men? It's like bad acting in a Junior High School play. In the end, their hope to turn this into another Dubai debacle where they get to do their best impression of hawks, did not pan out. They just looked really foolish. Sometimes they make it easier than shooting fish in a barrel. More like LOOKING at fish in a barrel.

Ricorun,

I don't recall anyone up in arms over the prisoners who have been released from Gitmo.

At any event, your merciless disposition in this issue shows that its merely a matter of opposing whatever it is that the Bush Administration and/or its allies are doing...

Axis...it took our country (that would be the USA) 8 years to win our independence from Great Britain.

Why do you think it will be a cakewalk in Iraq? This isn't a game so your daily little scoreboard of deaths is really cute, but if the revolutionaries acted like you pussies do now...we would still be under British control.

8 years and it was no picnic.

Now go off an crush a baby seal's skull for us like you good Canucks do.

Axis...it took our country (that would be the USA) 8 years to win our independence from Great Britain.

-- Exactly. It took YOU years to win your freedom, which you came to cherish and were willing to fight for it and took steps to minimize the chances it could be taken away.

However, in this case, YOU are doing the fighting for the Iraqis and then hoping that they will put the same value on democracy as you do, which I believe is an unreasonable assumption given its a totally foreign way of life for them.

Imagine that in the 1700's, instead of you fighting the British, the French came over and fought the British for you. Do you honestly believe that the American democracy that exists today would still be around if you had sat back and not taken a proactive role in winning that independance?

This isn't a game so your daily little scoreboard of deaths is really cute, but if the revolutionaries acted like you pussies do now...we would still be under British control.

Theres an old saying, "Theres more than one way to skin a cat" Canada for example, as with Australia and many other British Commonwealth countries did NOT fight a bloody war as you did, yet we all stand independant to this day, just as you are. The difference is that it was achieved without countless loss of lives.

America is a warring nation, having an involvement in some war or another since you gained your independance. It has become almost second nature to you, especially with this president, who departs from all previous presidents in the mindset that war is the first option, rather than the last one.

Its all ok for you chickhawks back here to support the war, because its beiong done on the cheap and with the exeception of the family of those enlisted, is being done without asking anything of ordinary americans. You still drive your nice gas guzzling SUV's, enjoy your tax cuts,(your bribe for silence) watching Survivor and American Idol on your big screen tv's while sitting on your cozy couch eating a TV dinner.

However, I might ask you if your views of support would change if suddenly your life was adversely affected as it was for most of WWII for example. War rationing, drafts, factories converted to war making efforts, slashing of government programs and budgets etc.

Somehow I think you might.

Kevin,

A little rambling, repetitive, and perhaps with some grammar or spelling errors, but I'm running a little short of time.

The fact is we ARE there.

We are there for many reasons, but it is pointless to discuss those reasons again with liberals. Liberals don't want to understand the reasons, and I don't think most are even capable of understanding the reasons. Contrary to what you may believe, it's not just a matter of WMDs or no WMDs -- it is also the real threat of future WMDs. It's not just an issue of stopping Saddam, his sons, and his regime from killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of his own people.

It is much more complex than that. If it weren't for 9/11, Saddam would probably still be in power -- indefinitely. If Saddam and his two sons had just limited their killing and torture to his own people, Saddam would probably still been in power -- indefinitely. Saddam and his two sons would still be killing and torturing thousands and thousands of his own people -- indefinitely.

The United States, Britain, and coalition members would still have troops, planes, and materiel in the region and on standby to stop or contain Saddam's latest or next military invasion, or plans for invasion of neighboring nations like Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- indefinitely . We would still be flying constant missions over the no-fly zones to offer a measure of protection to the Shiites and Kurds from elimination and genocide -- indefinitely. The tens of thousands of children would still be dying each year due to the U.N. sanctions -- indefinitely. Saddam would still be funding the suicide bombers to kill Israel families -- indefinitely. Saddam would still be threatening Israel and his neighbors, with missiles and invasion -- indefinitely. Saddam would still be secretly providing funding and who knows what else to terrorists to use against the U.S. -- indefinitely.

Saddam's actions would be constantly affecting the U.S. and world's stock markets, and people's retirement accounts -- indefinitely. Saddam would be a constant threat to the U.S. and world economies -- indefinitely. And that bad commodity, on which every economy runs and every nation depends -- that oil that liberals love to hate -- Saddam would still be whipsawing the world markets up and down, mostly up, affecting every American's pocket book -- indefinitely.

Saddam would still have his plans to restart his WMD as soon as he "convinced" the world he had "changed" -- indefinitely. Saddam would have remained a constant threat to mid-East peace and a major obstacle in current and future efforts to, at some point, establish a lasting peace there -- indefinitely. A tiger is a tiger is a tiger. A leopard does not change its spots. Saddam is and would have remained all the evil things that made Saddam and his two barbaric sons what they were and what they would have remained! There are many more issues and reasons, and there are many, many details and discussions related to each reason. Those could fill books.

If it were possible to actually stack up into one enormous pile all of the dead and tortured men, women, children, and families who were victims of Saddam and his murderous, sadistic, and barbaric sons, perhaps that would help liberals understand why Saddam had to be removed. If it were possible to actually see the trillions of dollars in damage that Saddam and his actions has and would continue to do the U.S. and world economies, and all the people of the world, perhaps that would help liberals understand why Saddam had to be removed. If it were possible to actually see Saddam's secret plotting, funding, and supporting terrorists behind the scenes, perhaps that would help liberals understand why Saddam had to be removed. If it were possible to actually see Saddam's plans for future WMDs, military development, and military conquests when U.N. sanctions were removed, perhaps that would help liberals understand why Saddam had to be removed. I can go on. But NO -- that would not help either -- liberals would deny it did or would happen!

If liberals can't actually see or touch something, it didn't happen; it isn't happening; and it won't happen. The fact is, even if liberals can actually see and touch something, the won't admit that it has or does exist... unless it fits in with their agenda or supports their rhetoric and propaganda mill! Regardless of the facts, liberals will take it for a "spin around the block" and keep on spinning with their conspiracy theories, allegations, implications, guilt transference, and their brainwashing techniques until their version no longer bears any resemblance to the facts! Liberal live in a world of denial... even when the evidence is dumped and piled at their feet!!!

At some point, enough is enough. At some point talk, tolerance, and containment ends. At some point, it becomes necessary to stop the INDEFINITE actions of Saddam, his sons, and his regime and put a FINITE END to them. At some point it becomes necessary to remove Saddam and his regime.

President Bush, Tony Blair, and a few other world leaders saw that need, and more than that, saw an opportunity -- a fleeting moment in history -- to do just that. President Bush acted -- decisively! President Bush acted as he should have acted. President Bush was exactly the right man for the job and did the right thing at exactly the right time. President Bush put a FINITE END TO SADDAM'S INDEFINITE killings, torture, invasions, threats of invasions, and constant threat to the world's security and economies!!!

Yes, there is a cost for putting an end to Saddam's regime, but there would have been far greater costs to allow it to continue -- indefinitely.

Yes, I know, liberal Democrats would have allowed Saddam's regime and business as usual to have continued -- indefinitely, but fortunately for the United States and the World, Democrats weren't in charge or in a position to keep Saddam in power -- even with the help of France, Germany, and Russia.

And what do we get from the liberal Democrats. No support for our troops, no support for the removal of Saddam. No acknowledgement of the positive things that will happen because of that. No reduction in their rhetoric or propaganda that has and continues to feed the hope and actions of terrorists.

Democrats could have put up a united front with Republicans on this one issue, knowing that the lives of our American troops are at stake along with the Iraqis. That would have helped convince terrorists they could not win. That would have helped reduce terrorists attacks and shorten the time we need to remain in Iraq. That would have helped President Bush deal with Iran, Syria, and North Korea, but no, no such help from the liberal Democrats. Liberal Democrats could have continued their hate campaign on the rest of President Bush's programs, while at least supporting our military, but no... liberal Democrats couldn't even do that!!!

No, the liberal Democrats only spew forth more of their hatred for America. Their anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-military propaganda has hurt the image of the presidency and the United States around the world. It has hurt America's influence around the world, militarily, economically, national security related, and other areas.

And worse, the liberal Democrats incessant hate filled anti-American propaganda and insistence they will cut and run from Iraq HAS provide hope and encouragement for terrorists. It CONTINUES to do so! Terrorists know that liberal Democrats will not stand up for them.

Yes, terrorists want Democrats to regain control of Congress and the Presidency. That is their hope. That is their salvation. And... they cast their votes each and every day for their Democratic hopefuls.

The fact is...

Each time the terrorists blow up another American soldier or Iraqi family, remember... they are in effect CASTING THEIR VOTE for the Democrats!!!!!

You want proof, check axis's and the other liberal daily posts. The first thing they report is the number of American soldiers and Iraqi families blown to bits each day. The same for the liberal news media. That is the news to them. That is what they want to continue in hopes of winning in November. If only we could identify which of those deaths were caused by the liberal Democratic propaganda!!!

To liberal Democrats, the end justifies the means... no matter how many American soldiers and Iraqi citizens it kills!

AAR

Imagine that in the 1700's, instead of you fighting the British, the French came over and fought the British for you. Do you honestly believe that the American democracy that exists today would still be around if you had sat back and not taken a proactive role in winning that independance?

New topic to google: Yorktown.

BTW, how did your last googling assignment turnout? I notice you haven't bothered to report back what you found out about the Battle of the Bulge, so I'm guessing you realized how utterly foolish you are, so you've attempted to avoid the subject.

You REALLY should not argue on the internet. I'm being kind when I say this: you have a truly pathetic understanding of history. Unfortunately for you, that is pretty much a requirement for this sort of thing.

LOL.....and just to be clear, re-read the "news" you posted, it pretty much destroys the notion that the Iraqis aren't "fighting" for their freedom.

Seriously, you are hilarious!!

Your comments indicating that providing ammnesty to terrorist killing the troops is serving their best interests is just laughable.

Classic example of mis-stating the opposing position just to suit one's argument. When your opponent doesn't say what you want them to say, just claim that they did. (insert rolls eyes smiley here)

Listen, you've embarassed yourself so many times on this thread you must not have the requiste IQ to understand and/or experience shame.

TLDietrich,

Keep after those liberals!

Like keffer said, you are wasting your time on them, but it's those "silent readers" you are helping. Axis and his liberal associates aren't here to discuss or learn. They are only here to plant thoughts and lies in hopes that others will accept them as truth and fact.

In fact, the liberals would prefer that we don't comment -- that we leave their lies unanswered. That is what Republicans have done for the most part for the past 5 years and what did it get them. Ignoring the liberal propaganda and lies did not reduce it's "perceived credibility" in the eyes of American voters.

Most can't and don't think about what they read or what is said. They have lost the ability to analyze, question, or think. The liberal schools no longer teach logic and reasoning. Most people just read it and accept it as truth and fact. Repeat it often enough, as liberals do, and they reach more and more people, and eventually more people begin to accept their propaganda and lies as truth.

If it sounds good or right, most people will consciously or subconsciously accept it as fact even though it isn't or is taken out of context. Liberals count on this in order to spread their lies and propaganda.

If nothing else, hopefully our comments will help others to question, to learn to think, to not accept anything a liberal says as fact or the truth.

Keep after 'em -- around every bend, at every corner!

AAR

TL, very few of the kook trolls who come here have an IQ that matches my golf score, and I shoot in the mid-80's.

You're completely wasting your time with axis of stupidity--when he's wrong, which is almost always, he just moves on to something else. I guess he watches Harry Reid and Nancy Piglosi a lot...

GOP 4 ME,

Thanks for the compliments.

I've been called Luke Skywalker, and other names, but never compared to Muhammad Ali.

I never know how my comments come across. I don't have enough time to do most of them justice, and some are "slightly abrasive and irritating", especially to our liberal readers. Too, if I comment on enough different topics, I'll manage to irritate everyone at one time or another -- hopefully not permanently for most.

I am thinking that "axis" is actually more than one person, or others are feeding him input. If not, he is good at "cutting and pasting" which fits right in with "cutting and running"!

Have a nice weekend (Father's Day too if it applies).

AAR

Mark said: "I don't recall anyone up in arms over the prisoners who have been released from Gitmo."

"You don't remember this? The cited story is one of many that were reported on the matter. In this one, Porter Goss (he was a congressman at the time) said of it, "It's the military Willie Horton."

The point I was trying to make is that there doesn't appear to be much in the way of consistency on either side with regard to releasing prisoners captured in the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq. And to claim that "letting them up easy" will demoralize their side is utter nonsense.

Also parenthetically, as I understand it Grant's release of the Confederate soldiers who fought at Vicksburg was part of the prisoner exchange agreement in place between the north and south at the time. In other words, they weren't just let go, they were exchanged for Union soldiers held elsewhere.

AAR...
I think you may be onto something..axis.being more than one person..somehow, I don't think he has the brain power to cut and paste all that "stuff" he spews out...
it's also pretty obvious he doesn't work....

Time for some more "Good news" from Iraq

----------------

10 Workers Kidnapped from Baghdad Bakery
By Qais Al-Bashir
The Associated Press

Sunday 18 June 2006

Gunmen seized 10 workers from a bakery Sunday in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, while a car bomb exploded near a university in the northern city of Mosul, killing a woman and wounding 19 other people, police said.

The scattered attacks came after a day of unrelenting violence that killed more than two dozen people as insurgents foiled heightened security measures, dealing a blow to the Iraqi government's pledge to bring peace to the capital.

The U.S. military, meanwhile, combed through the "Triangle of Death," a predominantly Sunni Arab region south of the capital for a second day looking for two soldiers missing since an attack Friday on a traffic checkpoint that also killed one of their comrades.

Thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops also set up outposts Sunday west of Baghdad as part of an operation to establish Iraqi army bases in the volatile Sunni Arab city of Ramadi.

U.S. commanders stressed that the operation was not a large-scale assault on the city, despite reports by Arab television networks and some Western outlets of an impending attack on the city similar to the 2004 operation to root out insurgents in Fallujah.

They said it was an "isolation" tactic to prevent insurgents from receiving supplies or reinforcements from outside.

Two long columns of U.S. and Iraqi armored vehicles met little resistance late Saturday as they encircled the southern side Ramadi, the capital of volatile Anbar province, although a handful of roadside bombs were discovered and detonated.

Insurgents also fired two mortar shells that landed about 500 yards away from where the troops were establishing the outposts on Sunday. U.S. troops fired back, but no injuries were reported.

In Baghdad, gunmen arrived in two cars, broke into the bakery and abducted the 10 workers in the northern suburb of Kazimiyah, police Lt. Mohammed Khayoun said. It was the same neighborhood where a mortar shell struck a well-known market Saturday, killing four people and wounding 13.

A mortar shell Sunday hit the al-Sadiq University for Islamic Studies on Palestine Street, one of the capital's main thoroughfares, wounding five students and a teacher, police Lt. Ahmed Qasim said.

The Mosul car bomb was apparently directed at U.S. convoy. It exploded near Mosul University, and most of the 19 wounded were female students, police Brig. Abdel-Hamid Khala said.

Police also found the bullet-riddled bodies of 10 men who showed signs of torture in several areas of Baghdad, and the body of a man who was shot in the head was found in Karbala, 50 miles south of the capital.

Witnesses who said they saw Friday's attack against the American troops in a volatile area south of Baghdad claimed the soldiers were led away by masked gunmen. The reports could not be confirmed and the U.S. military had no comment on them.

Ahmed Khalaf Falah, a farmer, said three Humvees were manning a checkpoint when they came under fire from many directions. Two of the vehicles went after the assailants, but the third was ambushed before it could move, he told The Associated Press.

Seven masked gunmen, including one with what he described as a heavy machine gun, killed the driver of the third vehicle, then took the two other U.S. soldiers captive, the witness said.

The New York Times also reported in its Sunday editions that Iraqi residents in the area said they saw two U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by a group of masked guerrillas. It said the two surviving soldiers were led to two cars and driven away.

The U.S. military said Sunday it was continuing the search but had no new information to provide.

The farmer also said tensions were high in the area as U.S. soldiers raided some houses and arrested men. He said the Americans were setting up checkpoints on all roads leading to the area of the attack and helicopters were hovering at low altitudes.

Falah did not give more details and no new raids were announced by the military early Sunday.

The spree of bombings and mortar attacks in the Baghdad area - including eight attacks Saturday that killed at least 27 people and wounded 27 - was an embarrassment for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who ordered more police and army checkpoints for the city last week to restore security for its 6 million residents.

This one is a worthy read as well

------------

Baghdad Blasts Mock US Claims of Iraqi Progress
By David Usborne
The Independent UK

Sunday 18 June 2006

Following death of Zarqawi and visit by Bush, leaders fail to bring end to cycle of violence.

A series of explosions ripped through Baghdad yesterday, killing at least 23 people and dealing a shattering blow to the new Iraqi government's attempts to impose a security blanket on the capital.

The seven separate blasts at locations across the city are likely similarly to frustrate the efforts of the White House to demonstrate a degree of progress in Iraq since the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi earlier this month, and the surprise visit to Baghdad last Monday by President George Bush.

In the meantime, a new Pentagon investigation revealed details of abusive treatment of detainees in Iraq early in 2004 by members of US special forces. The report said the soldiers were continuing to use interrogation techniques that had been ruled unacceptable several months earlier by the Pentagon because they were too harsh, including feeding one inmate on bread and water only for 17 days.

After President Bush stressed to Iraqi leaders the importance of their taking greater responsibility for security, the new government responded on Wednesday with a huge deployment of forces in Baghdad designed to bring an end to the cycle of violence.

The security campaign included a ban on the use of private cars during the hours of prayer on Friday. However, even that measure was thwarted when a suspected shoe bomber detonated a powerful explosion inside one of Baghdad's most important Shia mosques, killing 13 people.

Police described scenes of carnage in the capital after yesterday's bombings, which began with a mortar attack on one of Baghdad's oldest markets in the prominently Shia suburb of Kazimiyah. At least four people died. Shortly afterwards another market was struck by a bomb left in a plastic bag, killing two civilians. And a car bomb targeting an Iraqi army patrol left seven dead and 10 wounded.

The renewed violence comes as President Bush was seeking to take advantage of the death of Zarqawi to convince a sceptical American public that the situation in Iraq was starting to improve. However, a new CNN poll showed 54 per cent of Americans still believe the war was a mistake, and the political pressure on Mr Bush is growing in the run-up to crucial mid-term elections for the US Congress.

The White House public relations campaign on Iraq is also being clouded by the investigation into claims that a group of US Marines went on a rampage in the town of Haditha in November 2005 and indiscriminately killed 24 Iraqi civilians, including 10 women and children. Against this background, the new Pentagon report on the conduct of Special Operations forces in Iraqi prisons, released in heavily censored form to the American Civil Liberties Union, threatens to make President Bush's job still more difficult.

Some of the contents of the investigation, carried out by Brigadier General Richard Formica, were passed to members of Congress a year ago. No charges have been brought against the soldiers involved, as Gen Formica concluded that the problem lay with "inadequate police guidance" rather than "personal failure" on their parts.

Aside from the man on a ration of bread and water, other detainees were locked in cells so small they could neither lie down nor stand for several days, while interrogators played loud music to stop them sleeping.

The report also said that interrogators sometimes stripped detainees of their clothes, doused them with water and allowed them to stand shivering in air-conditioned rooms. It said one detainee subject to such treatment by Navy Seal interrogators in Mosul had died during questioning.

Another sunny report of the "good news" on the Iraqi front.

--------------------------

Attacks in Baghdad Kill at Least 31
Reuters

Saturday 17 June 2006

Baghdad - Bomb and mortar attacks killed at least 31 people in and near Baghdad on Saturday in violence that showed no sign of easing despite a security crackdown against al Qaeda in the capital.

U.S. forces were searching for two U.S. soldiers who went missing after an attack on Friday in which one American soldier was killed in the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Yusufiya in the "Triangle of Death" south of Baghdad.

"After hearing small arms fire and explosions in the vicinity of the checkpoint, a quick reaction force responded to the scene. Coalition forces have initiated a search operation to locate and determine the status of the soldiers," it said.

More than 2,500 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Saturday's violence followed a vow by al Qaeda's new leader in Iraq to avenge the death of his predecessor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. air strike last week.

In the deadliest attack, a car bomb targeting Iraqi army and police killed 11 people.

Reuters Television footage showed the blackened remains of at least six burnt-out cars. A charred body was taken on a stretcher to an ambulance. A man with blood on his face stood nearby looking stunned and smoking a cigarette.

New Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is under pressure to rein in violence that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, on Wednesday launched a much-trumpeted security sweep with 50,000 Iraqi forces backed by 7,000 U.S. troops to pile pressure on al Qaeda.

But the operation, mounted one day after President Bush made a surprise visit to Baghdad to bolster Maliki's month-old government, has failed to stop attacks.

In more violence of the type carried out by al Qaeda, a bomb killed six people and wounded 11 in a crowded market in central Baghdad and mortar rounds killed two people and wounded 14 in another market in the Shi'ite district of Kadhimiya.

Attacks on Markets

Attacks on crowded markets are a common tactic used by al Qaeda as part of what U.S. officials say is a campaign to ignite a sectarian civil war between majority Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs.

In the town of Mahmudiya just south of the capital, a car bomb targeting an Iraqi army checkpoint killed seven people.

Four days into the crackdown, the Interior Ministry has not announced any arrests or other results.

As the wounded from Saturday's blasts were being treated, state television broadcast footage of Iraqi soldiers marching to the sound of martial music, part of a government campaign to bolster the image of its security forces.

The U.S. military has said it expects al Qaeda's new leader, who it identified as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, to use the same tactics as Zarqawi, a Sunni Arab militant who had concentrated mass attacks against Shi'ites.

On Friday, a suicide bomber killed at least 10 people in a Shi'ite mosque in Baghdad. An Iraqi militant body linked with al Qaeda pledged on Friday to continue a holy war against U.S. forces until "doomsday."

axis,

Yep, more terrorist's votes for Democrats.

Maybe tomorrow will be a better day for you. Still waiting for a big 1000 deaths in a day to make you happy.

Keep encouraging the terrorists. Keep those Democratic votes piling up -- literally!

I've never seen anyone who gets as much pleasure from the death and injury to others as you do.

I've never seen anyone like you who is actually happier when more people are killed!

AAR

Axis....you're Canadian remember? You don't mean anything to anyone.

I just noticed that the article I intended to cite in my last post didn't get cited. Here it is:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041018-124854-2279r.htm